davelepka

Back in the day when the skyball started to show up in freefly videos (mainly Chronicle 2), me and my buddies were already freeflying with some success, and had 500 to 1000 jumps each, so we figured, why not? It turned out there were a bunch of reasons why not, and most of them are several feet deep in the Ohio woods. A couple of us were also almost several feet deep in the Ohio woods chasing things much lower than we should have. There's nothing like 3 guys going for the same freefly-speeed skyball under 2k to get your attention. Eventually we did get it figured out, and then for some reason we all paid Olav $75 to prove it and earned an 'Atmospheric Dolphin A License'. A lot of good that did....

Releasing anything in freefall is risky business. Flying with a skyball, tuned for an ideal speed and falling straight down is not easy, and that's why it's generally frowned upon. Add in the variables of fruit, those being the size and density, and the 'odd' shapes, what you end up with is a fall rate you may or may not be able to stay with, and a trajectory that's anyone's guess. If the 'object' starts to spin, it will not fall straight down, or even close to it. I'm sure it goes without saying, you need the very clear and obvious permission of the DZO and the pilot before releasing anything in freefall. Walk up to each of them, fully geared up and holding the 'object' right before you board the plane, and double check that they know you are doing it then, and that they still agree to the action. The other thing is to have a plan in place for the bottom end. You should assign the best flyer in the group to 'catch' the item, and have a break off plan where everyone clears away fom the object at 5k, and make sure the 'catcher' knows that he needs to stop tryng to catch the object by 2500ft. He will need time to catch and secure the object, and then get stable and slowed down for deployment. You need your hands on the object by 2500 at the lowest to even hope to have all that other stuff done by 2000 so you can deploy. If you don't have it by 2500, you're never going to have it, so give up and open a parachute. Overall, just don't do it fi you have to ask questions on the internet. If you don't have someone on your DZ with experience in this sort of thing who is willing to organize the jump, just take a pass and do something else.

Keep in mind the reserve PC and reserve will follow the relative wind. If you are spinng under any sort of canopy, the reserve will open to the rear of the canopy, as the relative wind is going past the canopy, not toward it. In a PC in tow, horseshoe, baglock, or streamer, yes, you are firing the reserve into the mess if you do not or can not cutaway. Again, follow the relatuive wind, and if it's going toward the canopy, so will the reserve. Of course, once the reserve gets open, having it next to a malfunctioning main isn't the best idea, but at least it will be out there.

It sounds like you're asking if it will be harder to pack a 170 into a rig built for a 190 than packing a 190 in that same rig, right? It's the exact opposite. The smaller canopy will be easier to pack, as there's less 'stuff' going into the same size space. What you really want to do, is look for a rig that will hold a 170, and then do one of two things to make a 190 fit - option one (as mentioned) is to buy a low-bulk 190 made from ZPX, and it will most likely be new or close to new, as ZPX itslef is new to the market. The other option is to look for a well-used 190, one that that has been 'broken in' and is easy to pack. Option one is going to be more expensive (of course) and the downside is that when you want to downsize, you'll lose some money on the sale. A canopy with 0 jumps is very expensive while a canopy with 100 jumps is going to be several hundred dollars less, and the difference is the money you lose. Option two is cheaper to start, and cheaper to finish. The price difference between a canopy with 700 jumps and 800 jumps is almost nothing. If you get a good deal on a used canopy, and find a buyer willing to pay top dollar, you might even make money on the deal. Provided it passes a riggers inspection, a canopy with 500-1000 jumps on it should be an inexpensive and easy to pack first canopy. In the end, you end up keeping your new container through 3 canopies, the 190, 170 and 150. By the time you're packing a 150 in there, it will be loose and easy, and you'll be a good packer by that point. You should be able to get the job done in 8 to 10 min, no problem (by that time; the 190 is going to take you longer the first 100 times).

Yes, but it's a very slim chance. As previously mentioned, a harness resize is in order, and that should solve the problem. Look for a rig that will fit the canopies she needs, and that has a med to small harness. Get the serial number for the harness, and then fill out an order form for that same type of rig with your friends measurements. Contact the manufacturer with both, and see if they can do it, and what the cost will be. There's a fair chance that the short Main Lift Web will require short handles to fit in between the chest strap and the hip junction. This will add to the cost, but cannot be avoided. She may be able to sell the old handles to offest the cost. Another area of concern will be the risers, and again they can make her a set of 'shorty' risers so she can comfortably reach the toggles (and maybe the slider?). The bigger problem is what to do about canopies. The rule of thumb is that canopies smaller than 150 are considered 'high performance' due to quicker handling from the short lines. Your friend will be exiting the plane at about 110 lbs, so even a 150 is very lightly loaded. The quicker handling only gets worse the smaller you go, so a 135 or 120 would be even worse, even though the WL would be getting closer to 'normal'. The easy solution is having her do a bunch of jumps to work her way down to that range, the problem is finding a rig to do it. The mods to a used rig could run $500 - $600 (including handles/risers) so she will want to try to get down to a canopy (and rig) size she'll be able to use for awhile before getting a rig set-up. I don't have any real suggestions for how to proceed, this is one of those cases where there's no 'easy' way to go. It's like the 300lb guys who want to jump, they can do it, but they need specialized gear to make it happen, she's just on the other end of the spectrum.

Nobody bring this up with the USPA, you know what they'll say. "We got good pulbicity for the USPA and skydiving in general by supporting this cause. It was a charity event (I'm guessing) that honored those lost in 9/11. I'm sure there are many teams out there that would also do the jumps for free just for the privledge of paying honor to the victims and first responders from 9/11." Granted, all of the above may be true, but all of those 'other teams' that would do the jump at no cost are living on their own dime. The USPA team is, for all intensive purposes, a 'kept' team in that they owe the whole of their existance (and $10k) to the members of the USPA. If Steve's Car Wash wants to donate $10k to a local charity, and hope to get some publicty out of it, so be it. If Dan's Car Wash, which just opened and is in hock to investors for 100% of the start-up turns around and drops $10k on the same charity, you can bet your ass the investors are going to have a word with Dan. You can be a big shot and give away the store, but only when it's your store. I, for one, will be waiting to see the explanation for the 'free' demo. The problem is, they can ride the, 'promotion for the team, promotion for the USPA, promotion for skydiving' excuse ad infinitum because technically demos do provide promotional opportunities for all invovled, but that's ignoring the $10k they 'borrowed', the same $10k that gets further and further from looking like it's going to be repaid the more layers we peel off this onion. Unfortunately, it also looks like the action the USPA is going to take in the wake of the objections to this is going to be nil. We'll have to wait for the next BOD meeting, at which point it may or may not come up, and if so it may or may not be in an 'open' session with the general membership in attendance, and in any case it stands a 90% chance of being discussed and shelved until the next BOD meeting. It's neat how fast the $10k was handed out, how slow it's going to be to get anyone to talk about it, and how even slower it's going to be (if ever) repaid. That said, this demo team business proved one thing, that the USPA can act quickly when they want to, whcih leads me to believe they just don't give two shits about any of the stuff that seems to take forever to get any attention.

Seeing as you (probably wisely) stopped posting on your own thread, I'll bring you back into it for a bit. I'm sure you've been reading, however, and you can see that people are not looking favorably at you, and here's why - For starters, and I don't think this has been pointed out, but have you considered what would have happned if you had a high-speed malfunction? As things turned out, you had a two-out and you did have an open main before you reserve deployed and I think this is giving you a false sense of security that you didn't screw up 'that bad'. From your point of view, you deployed your main, and the AAD fucked it up by firing for 'no reason', but the fact of the matter is that the AAD had a very good reason to fire, that's because it's way more altitude aware than you are and it knew about the impending imapct with the ground. Back to the high speed mal, if you had a PC in tow, hard pull, or bag lock, think through the scenario. If you were low enough to scare your AAD, you would have had ZERO chance to pull your own handle before the AAD got to it. By the time you realized you were having a mal, you would have smoked through AAD firing altitude. Let's say your AAD didn't work, or maybe your cutter didn't have a blade it. In that case, you would have ONE chance to pull your reserve, and have it open before impact. Let's say between 2 and 3 seconds to identlfy a high speed mal, decide to pull silver, then locate and pull (how many reserve side practice pulls have you done in freefall???). Much beyond those 3 seconds, you stand a very good chance of going in with a partially inflated reserve, or given the recent history of reserve deployment hesitations, no reserve at all. Either case is going to suck. What it comes down to is that you left your life in the hands of a main pack job and an AAD. If the pack job didn't work out, it was up to the AAD or you most likely would have gone in. Why people are shiting on you is because this seems to escape you and haven't ackowledged how serious the situation was. Your posts seem to lean toward blaming everyone and evertything but yourself, and minimizing how bad this really was. I want to conclude that maybe you read the thread and took some of it to heart, but then we hear that not long after the 'roof' incident, you're jumping in wind conditions that casued highly experienced jumpers to go home. WTF dude?

Yeah he did. I proved it upthread when I asked who spoke to him, who allowed him to jump a camera in the first place, and who was going to let him continue to jump a camera. Of course, the Ranch made itself look bad by letting these things, and from what I gather, allowing him to jump in marginal wind conditions, but there are two sides to every coin. Even if the management is 'overly permissive', the jumper is free to set their own limits, and not run every factor right to the edge of what they can 'get away with'.

It is nasty, but it's also the truth of the matter. Sometimes jumpers get lulled into a false sense of security because they see (and experience) so many 'good' landings. The vast majority of landings involve a good flare, and even if the timing or extent of the flare isn't excactly perfect, it's enough to reduce the impact with the ground to something less than if you fell down after tripping on your own shoelace. However, if you've ever seen a jumper land with no flare, you realize the significance of the flare, and how much difference it makes. I've only seen students fly stright into the ground with no flare at all, and even an average sized student jumping a 280 sq ft canopy goes in like a sack of bricks with a no flare landing. Now take that one step further, and make it a canopy loaded at 1.1 or 1.2 instead of .75 to 1, and think about the impact. Now add in a panic turn, and imagine the impact with the added speed. The basic idea is that even a canopy loaded conservatively will pile you into the ground without a halfway decent flare. It doesn't take much of a mistake to get into the "bones protruding through your skin" level of injury. It's a little harder to kill yourself, but just about every jumper on every jump is very, very close a bone fracturing injury, and it's the flare that saves them and turns into a fun jump and gets you back in the hanger packing up for another. There's not a lot of room for error. The way canopies fly and the way the human body absorb impact are not exactly a match made in heaven. Don't stack the deck against yourself with 'borderline' equipment choices. Fun fact - I heard from an EMT buddy that they consisder any fall from 12 or 14ft on up to be considered 'critical', and they expect severe injuries to result. That's falling from a stationary position, like a ladder, 12 ft to the floor. Considering that the majority of your time is spent well above 12 ft on a skydive, and that you also have a forward speed component to deal with, you can see that it's an area to really respect. If it's 'meant to be' there will be time for smaller and faster canopies. If you jump for a couple of years and have some success in developing your skills, you'll get your chance. If you quit jumping before then, or jumping quits you (like side-lining you with an injury) you'll be gald that you didn't have the smaller canopy in your rig. Note- I know you chimed in a suggested that you're going to go with the larger canopy, and I applaud you. The majority of this post was aimed at 'Joe Skydiver' reading this thread at home, who still thinks he's got some shit in his ass that doesn't stink.

Not to subtract from your efforts (I'm assuming that's a copy of the letter/email you sent to USPA HQ), but my impression of the situation is that check has already been written and cashed.

That might be so, and your argument isn't going to help the idea that people think you're a lawyer. However, the C license is both a demonstrated level of competence AND experience. I'll let the SIM do the talking here - C License 3. Persons holding a USPA C license are able to exercise all privileges of a B-license holder, are eligible for the USPA Instructor rating (except USPA Tandem Instructor), participate in certain demonstration jumps, may ride as passenger on USPA Tandem Instructor training and rating renewal jumps, and must have-- a. met all current requirements for or hold a USPA B license b. completed 200 jumps, including accumulating at least 60 minutes of controlled freefall time c. landed within two meters of target center on 25 jumps d. aerial performance requirements, either: (1) during freefall, perform in sequence within 18 seconds-a backloop, front loop, left 360-degree turn, right 360-degree turn, right barrel roll and left barrel roll (2) completed at least two points on an 8-way or larger random skydive e. passed a written exam conducted by a current USPA I/E, S&TA, or USPA Board member. - I'll direct the courts attention to item 'b' on the list, and it clearly states that a jumper must have completed 200 jumps totaling not less than 60 mintues of freefall time to qualify for a C license. No 200 jumps means no licesnse, which means a jumper with less than 200 jumps is below the reccomended number of jumps the USPA put forth for jumping cameras. You said it yourself, the reccomendation is to have a C license, not to have skills equivilant to a C license. You suggested that I overstated the reccomendation by calling it 200 jumps, and not the C license, when in actuality I understated it by only calling it 200 jumps. The truth, it seems, is that you need 200 AND the C license to meet the USPA requirement (with the 200 jumps just being there due to it's requirement for earning a C license).

It seems not as he continues to downplay the role of the camera, and intends to keep jumping it. Which brings me to my next point, am I to understand that the Ranch permits the use of cameras for jumpers with less than 200 jumps? I know it's not a BSR, but it's a reccomendation, and for the USPA to get off it's ass and do anything means it has some merit (and probably should have been done a year ago). Which brings me to my next point, am I to understand that the Ranch, in the wake of this incident with this jumper, will continue to allow him to jump a camera with under 200 jumps? I've already chimed in with the mistakes made by the jumper in question, so now I'll add the Ranch to the party. Allowing a jumper with less than 200 jumps to jump a camera is a risk, and this case proves that. Beyond that, to not end the 'debrief' of this jump with the words, 'You're not jumping a camera at this DZ until you have over 200 jumps', is beyond stupid. The only 'argument' against the 200 jump min for jumping cameras is that some jumpers are ready before then, and while that may be true (with the catch being that there's no way to know beforehand), this jumper has proven to not be one of the 'chosen few' who can deal with a camera before 200 jumps, and should not be allowed to continue jumping one. Who the hell is in charge at the Ranch these days?

Most of the problems with the deal have already been mentioned, but I'll put them all together so you can see the whole pitcure - - The reserve is a 150, so if a 150 is too small, then the reserve is too small. You stand a good chance of a reserve landing not being 'normal', you might be off the DZ or stressed from your cutaway, so the last thing you need is a reserve that is too small. - If the main is a Sabre 150, and your canopy is a Sabre2 170, you're not going to want to switch from a Sabre2 to a Sabre. They are very different, and the Sabre2 is a much better canopy. You'll probably end up selling the Sabre 150, and they're not worth much these days. - The Reflex is no longer in production and the company has shut down. There 'may' be a source for replacement parts, but I'm not sure. If you have a cutaway and lose the freebag and pilot chute, you want a rig you can easily get parts for. I know at one time someone was providing replacement parts after the company went under, but that was years ago. You'll want to confirm a steady source for parts before buying a Reflex. - If all you have jumped is a 290, you have a long way to go before jumping a 170. Even at your light weight, you'll want to step down gradually over the course of several jumps. Look to make a handful of jumps on something in the 240/260 range, than the same on a 210/220, and then the same on a 190 before jumping the 170. When switching from something too huge like a 290, you can take a big step down and drop 40 or 50 sq ft at once (to a 240/260). The smaller you get, the less you want to step down with each size. It might only take 2 or 3 jumps on each size, but you're asking for trouble by making too big of a downsize. If your DZ only has the 290, look to make a trip to a DZ with a better selection of rental gear. You could also order demo canopies from PD, and have the DZ put them in the student rig for you to jump. You could also look to borrow canopies from other local jumpers that the DZ could put in the student rig for you. Overall, the rig might be a good deal, but it's not a good deal today, in your current situation. Where are you located? If it's a seasonal DZ, hold off on the purchase and use the winter to look for other options. If you already have the main canopy, a 170 reserve is easy to find, and all you need is a container. Keep in mind that you can have any harness re-sized to fit you. If you find a rig that will hold 170's, but was built for a bigger jumper, get the serial number and call the manufacturer for a quote on a resize. Typically it will run from $250 to $450, so if you find a good deal on a container, or can get the seller to knock off some money to offset the resize, you could have a 'custom fit' container for much less than the cost of a new rig. Remember, a rig sized for a 170 will be able to hold a 150 and most likely a 135. With no need to downsize the reserve, you could get a custom harness put on the rig, and jump it for quite a while as you work your way down to something smaller than a 135. Typically, you can sell your used main and buy a smaller used main for about the same money, so the downsizing won't cost you anything.

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that safety trumps editing tricks. Unless you're worried about how to slow-mo your camera guy taking out a tandem, go back to square one and get some safe fotoage to edit, then worry about how 'cool' you can make it look. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1716520;search_string=tandem%20collision%20jason;#1716520

I think it's a bad idea because it is. I know it is because that's the current state of affairs. and we continue to see open canopy incidents as the number one documented killer of skydivers, with countless other non-fatal incidents which are not documented. Is there another system in place (in the US) that I am not aware of? Last time I checked, unless the USPA has a BSR in place to cover a situation, what is or is not allowed to happen on a DZ is left up to the DZO. Canopy selection is not covered by the USPA, and as such, the DZO is the one who has the final say. Do you think it's working? No, the discussion is about reducing all open canopy related incidents, not just collisions. Just as much as I don't want to see canopy collisions, I also don't want to read about another jumper in a coma who may or may not wake up, and if they do, may or may not walk again. Half of Sangi's problem was his equipment selection, and half was his attitude. Introducing WL limitations and required canopy control training does three things, with the first two being obvious. -It limits the WL of a jumper such that it's always conservative relative to their jump numbers. As their experience grows, their tendency to make 'rookie' mistakes will be reduced, and then they can advance to a faster canopy. -It requires additional training, and forces people to apply themselves in some way toward being a better, safer, more informed pilot. The third, less obvious, benefit is that it gives new jumpers the impresion that canopy selection and canopy control training is important. We require jumpers to practice EPs when they are students, and go through live water training to get a license because these things are important and worthwhile. By making canopy selection and training an official 'requirement', it lends credibility to the idea that this is an area to take seriously, and not the place to push the limits. How it effects me aside, that's an extreme measure and along the same lines of 'why not outlaw jumping, that would stop the injuries'. There are many jumpers who are qualified and trained to jump canopies smaller than 150 sq ft, that's why we don't need to limit every jumper to bigger canopies forever. That's what you're suggesting, that not one jumper is ever allowed to jump anything smaller than a 150 for the rest of time. Compare that to my idea, which is that for the first 3 or 4 years and 400-ish jumps in the sport, that jumpers have a restriction on the size and type of canopy they can jump, with those restricitons becoming less and less as they progress through that time. In the end, they are then 'free' to jump whatever they please. Your suggestion is absurd and all-encompassing. My suggestion is reasonable, currently in use in at least a dozen other countries, and is a temporary situation that only applies to newer and low time jumpers. Do you really need to ask why your idea is different than mine?

And what POV is that? Some sort of god-like over view of the whole world and every jump that is made, or are you just reading the fatality reports like everyone esle? What the fatality reports don't tell you is about every non-fatal incident, every near miss with another canopy, and every time an injury is narrowly avoided. Take Sangi, for example. He's a textbook case of being in over his head, and it resulted in an incident including severe injuries. At one point it wasn't a guarantee that he was going to come out of that coma, and if he did, it wasn't clear that he would ever walk again. Despite the significance of the incident, it will never appear on a fatality report, or really any report, so 'officially' it never happened. Of course, we know that it happened, and that others like it have also happened, and that less severe incidents have happened, and that near misses have happened, and that many of them involved newer jumpers on canopies and at WL they should not be on. I'm not surpirsed you're opposed to the idea of some oversight in the area of canopy selection. Fitting right into the historical pattern, I maintain that you are a new jumper who has done extensive reading and garnered the bulk of your info from DZ.com, and not 'DZ real life'. As such, you stand to be effected by any rules limiting canpopy selection, and of course are opposed. It's very hard to argue that the idea of limiting WL and canopy type for newer jumpers would not reduce incidents of all kinds under open canopies. It's also vey hard to argue that at the vey least such limitations would 'do no harm', despite that, you're still opposed but surprisingly you have not addressed those two points. So do you honestly believe that restricting WL will not reduce open canopy incidents/injuries? When was the last time jumping a slower canopy was the casue of injury? Beyond that, even if you doubt the ability of a WL limit to help, what harm could it possibly do? Even if the chance is only slight that it will help anyone, why not put it into use for the benefit that it might provide?

Can't you read? The camera and filming the opening had nothing to do with it, he was enjoying a bit of backflying after a jump and took it too low. The fact that he was wearing a camera and pointing it in the direction of a deploying jumper was a simple coincidence. Haven't you ever rolled over to backfly at the end of a jump 'just because'? After all, he had a Vigil, what could go wrong?

It won't harm the rig, provided you're doing it right. Like I reccomended to the other guy, get a hold of one of the packers or instructors from your DZ, and schedule a private lesson. With a new-to-you rig, you'll want someone there to answer questions about the various parts and techniques for pakcing that rig. They can help you figure out how to fold the canopy so it fits in the bag, and so the bag fits in the container. You can get the closing loop adjusted properly, and tips on routing and stowing the bridle and PC. On top of that, you can also get some 'general' pointers on your packing, and really make some progress toward chipping away at that 30 min packing time. Once you've done the above, then go ahead and pack your rig a dozen times to really get your technique down and speed up. Save yourself time, money and hassles on your vacation by pakcing your own stuff, and still being able to make every other load.

Exactly, which means that the majority of the staff have a ton of extra time on their hands. Call the DZO and see who he thinks would be interested, and get a phone number. I would imagine that a packer or instructor would be happy to help out with a private packing lesson. I would think $40-ish to $50-ish, along with food and beverages, should cover it.

I have no idea. I never mentioned the word 'legislation', and in fact when I did refer to 'official oversight' for the first time, I was sure to use quotes around the word 'official' and not the word 'oversight' because the actual oversight is not exactly official in that it's coming from a skydiving organization and not the government.

Once again, nobody has mentioned creating a law or involving any governmental agency. 'Official oversight' in the skydiving world (in the US) means the USPA. The truth is, the longer the USPA sits on it's duff the closer we get to actual governmental oversight in the form of the FAA. The director of the FAA has already sent a shot across the bow of skydiving, letting us know that we're on their radar and that action needs to be taken. If that action is on the part of the USPA, good, and if not I can only imagine that the FAA will step in. I'm all for freedom, but even in the US, we're not really 'free'. We have limitations on what we can do, and those limitations are in place in order to keep things 'civilized'. You can't drive 100mph, you can't take things that don't belong to you, and you can't harm another person. These are all limitations on your behavoir, but all in the name of peaceful coexistance with others. The same can be said for skydiving. We have a great deal of freedom, but for the sake of maintaining a workable 'society', we cannot be left to do anything and everything we want. There was a time where canopies were not an area of concern, and thus no canopy relates rules are in place. Times have changed, and it's time the rules change as well. Let's face it, 20 years ago there were no laws governing intellectual property on the internet, but times have changed and the internet has become a marketplace where intellectual property has value and needs to be protected. Ditto with canopies, it used to be a non-issue, and now it's the biggest issue, so let's get with the times and take some action.

You do know that nobody is talking about creating an actual law, right? Nobody is suggesting that it be a criminal offence to jump the wrong canopy. The discussion is about the USPA creating a BSR with regards to canopy selection and education. Within the skydiving community in the US, a USPA BSR is as close to a law as we get, but there are no criminal consequnces for breaking a BSR. That todbit aside, your views are still selfish and shortsighted. What is the downside to having a BSR that restricts a downsizing progression? We know the intended benefit, that being ensuring that jumpers have an appropriate amount of skill and experience for the canopy they are jumping, but what's the downside? What about it makes you feel that it's a bad idea? My ideas having nothing to do with me or my situation, I'm well past needing any help chosing a canopy or what to do with it. I get nothing out of this besides creating what I see as a better situation for new jumpers and skydiving in general. I'm not sure how you could call that selfish on my part. Your ideas, on the other hand, don't appear quite as magnanimous. Just how many jumps do you have? Are you in the range that might be effected by such a BSR? Are you concerned about being 'held back' from whatever you think your progression should be? This must be the 1000th time this issue has come up on DZ.com, and it never fails that the jumpers who stand to be effected (who also happen to be low timers) all rail against the idea of any oversight, while jumpers beyond the BSR (higher time, or longer time jumpers) all seem to support the idea. On the one hand you could look at it as jumpers only being concerned about themselves, the low timers looking to not be curtailed and the high timers not being concerned about things that don't effect them. The reality is different though, it's the low timers who don't know better and the high timers who have figured out what's what. Not the best example, but who is making the laws in the country, kids fresh out of college or older folks who have been around for awhile? Is there a chance that life (skydiving) experience might give you some insight as to how the world works? In any case, it's fun to look back and see that not one jumper has posted here to support you, while all who have replied to you have sided with me. Coincidence? Me thinks not.

Classic case of a newbie with a camera, and the problems it can create. In this case, the problem was the desire to flm the opening of the other jumper. Meanwhile, one look at the leg of the 'camera guys' jumpsuit reveals a baggy freefly type suit. One look at the girl reveals a skin tight jumpsuit. The end result is a drasitic difference in jumper size/weight, and it show when he tries to transition to his back and drops out several hundred feet. His lack of ability to remain stable aside, there was nothing to film as he was just too far away. A jumper who was not trying to 'get the shot' or 'impress the girl' might have realized ahead of time, but that was not this jumper. Furthermore, when the other jumper on the two-way opens, there is no need to wave off or check your altimeter. The freefall portion of the jump is clearly over, move on and open a parachute as soon as safely possible. As far as the rest of it goes, collapsing the slider and landing on the house were additional mistakes. In the end, this turned out fairly well and the jumper won't soon forget the cost of the repack and Vigil fire, and the embarrasment of landing on a house with an open front and back yard. Maybe he'll learn his lesson. That said, a word to the fellas - the best way to impress a girl on the DZ is to do everything you can to ensure her safety, your own safety, and the general success of the jump. There's nothing wrong with an easy two-way with one dock where you share a smile or a kiss in freefall, and then follow it up with a safe, on time break-off, safe on-time openings, and safe on-target landings. There is nothing you're going to do that is going to impress a girl to the degree that her pants will drop. Unless you're planning to land a wingsuit or track back in to the plane, nothing you do is going to have the desired effect. The jump in question would have been far more memorable (for the right reasons) if it was followed by a conventional breakoff, opening and landing. If you want to go the extra mile, how about land first and film her landing? That's a safe alternative, and of use in debriefing the jump.

I'm not sure where you got 'everything and everybody' from, all I'm talking about is the issue of canopy control education and canopy selection for new jumpers in the US. I might not know 'everything about everyone', but I do feel qualified to speak on the issues surrounding canopy control and selection for newer jumpers. I'm also not sure how you jump to the conclusion, based on my views of this one issue, that I'm what's wrong with society. It's a documented problem (open canopy incidents) with severe consequnces (death/permanent injury), and you think that trying to acknowledge and eliminate that problem is what's wrong with society? You don't think that your solution of letting 'problems sort themselves out' is a bit less humane then my solution of trying to prevent open canopy incidents? Thanks for further 'explaining' yourself, and further proving my point.

Genius. Given any thought to the backlash from you killing yourself on the same DZ I'm trying to work/play? Bad press, cops all over the place, lawyers oozing out from under rocks, other jumpers having to witness your stupidity. Yeah, you sound like a considerate, well thought-out individual, and I can see why people would rather do things your way then to side with me and my 'crazy' ideas for logical downsizing progressions and continuing education. What ever was I thinking?!?!